I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well.
He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says 
"I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and 
it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that 
he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as 
refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time,
I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated
actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one 
centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. 
The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is
interesting; 
it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist 
in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science
knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't 
understand how it subtracts.
: Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman